Journal Editor Calls for Quarantine of 'Groundbreaking Studies'

Dr. Elizabeth Loder, who is a U.S. research editor for the BMJ, recently blogged about “How medical journals can help stop disease-mongering.”
in the blog, Loder reflected on her recent participation on a panel I
moderated at the "Selling Sickness" conference in Washington. Joining
Loder on the panel were Jocalyn Clark, PhD, of PLoS Medicine, and Nancy
Shute, who blogs and reports for NPR.org.

Loder blogged about some of the ideas she shared with the audience during the panel session. Excerpt:

First, why not quarantine apparently groundbreaking
studies about new treatments or interventions in a special journal until
the findings are replicated and long term consequences explored? Print
copies of the journal would arrive in plain brown wrappers which undone
would show the journal’s cover logo of a skull and crossbones. During
quarantine, any news stories or summaries of research from this journal
would travel with a sternly worded disclaimer, along the lines of those
that accompany investment company advertisements. Something like the
following would do nicely:

To fill the void, medical journals deprived of these sensational
research studies could instead devote themselves to the promotion and
prioritization of the less glamorous medical research that really
matters: replication studies, comparative effectiveness trials, and long-term pharmacosurveillance and safety studies.

My second suggestion was that several parts of a typical research
paper are too important to be written by the researchers or anyone else
with a vested interest in the outcome of the research. These include the
portions where “spin” is mostly likely to enter into the paper, namely
the title, abstract, results, and conclusion sections, and any summary
or “what this study adds”
statements that authors are now sometimes asked to supply. These
portions of research papers should instead be written by disinterested
parties with subject matter expertise.